Coming between a human being and his or her favorite depravity is like interfering with the proverbial bear and its cubs. Ferocity, desperation, and attack are the results. Just look at what happened during a recent pro-life rally in San Francisco.

The response there was rabid, vicious and insane, ranging from physical intimidation and condom-throwing, to parading naked down the street with signs containing hate-filled slogans lofted high and proudly.

Pro-abortion factions are virulently jealous of their freedom to destroy life in the womb, and view any infringement on that right as a fascistic attack on modernity and political tolerance. “Keep your laws off my body and I’ll keep my hands off your throat!” was one of the more moderate placards. “Ban sex with a pro-lifer!”, “Abortion saved my life!” and “Keep the Right-wing out of my womb!” were other signs displayed prominently, without the slightest sense of shame…or irony.

Yet issues like “Stop Protecting Rapists in Europe” or “Ban Suppression of Woman’s Rights in Islamic Countries!” don’t elicit much of a peep from the same emphatic woman’s rights crowds here in the U.S. But let somebody in D.C. propose a ban on partial birth abortion, and all hell breaks loose.

Why is that, I wonder? Why are people so eager to proclaim the sanctity and priority of “tolerance” in their own safe and sound backyard with unwavering, some might say, fanatical, commitment, and so unwilling to protest similarly on behalf of those who can’t safely do so on their own? Why don’t we see such public shows of dissent by these same “committed” individuals in places where that activity might result in being beaten, stabbed, tortured or having acid thrown in your face (as reportedly happened a few months ago in Gaza, when young women were caught walking about without a head covering). Where is the passion, the moral and logical consistency, the do-or-die attitude prevalent in say, San Francisco? Why isn’t the same sense of outrage displayed? Where are the cries of protest on behalf of those female victims? Why aren’t American leftists hopping on a plane and making the same fuss in Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait, or Lebanon?

The bottom line here in American is that there is a large segment of the population who is, oddly enough, very protective and proud of antisocial and anti-survival behavior. The truth is that it doesn’t take a tremendous amount of courage to protest against the ideas and positions of decent citizens safely ensconced in a country founded on the rule of law. Christians and most other mainstream groups are, after all, unlikely to threaten anyone with retaliation for disagreeing with them (unlike what happens when a conservative speaks to a liberal audience at Columbia University). And even those despicably uncivilized rightist groups, that occasionally rear their ugly heads, are far less conspicuous and boisterous overall, and, on the whole, receive much more negative press.

It is only in a free society like ours that the vituperation, vehemence and blatant disrespect evidenced on the part of the irreligious left is possible; where they are allowed to safely manifest behavior reminiscent of a bear responding to perceived interference with its offspring. The motivation is the same, by the way. The bear is attempting to protect and defend, in whatever way necessary, something of vital importance to its life; in this instance, its cubs, instinctively representing future viability of the species.

In the instance of the abortion-on-demand proponents, that something vital is a fierce attachment to independent self-will: the unholy desire to persist in doing what he or she wants, when he or she desires. In short, it is the self-centered insistence that human beings are not accountable to any higher authority other than their own vain conceits and imaginations. Their often unspoken position is that no one other than themselves has the right to impose moral boundaries. Unless of course, the imposers are really, really scary, and uncivilized, and the consequences actually dangerous, then immediate capitulation is the order of the day.

Sin is what we’re talking about here, of course, and please note it is not “quoted”, either figuratively or literally. It’s a real thing with real consequences, and is the hallmark of the inherent rebellion of our species in wanting to “do our own thing” (and God help anyone who gets in the way, unless of course they are willing to wield a bigger stick than the defenders of “freedom and tolerance”).

I’ve come to understand that allowing such reprehensible rebellion is a remarkable component of God’s trying to instill obedience in His creatures. And I, myself, have often been the beneficiary of such temporary Divine tolerance. You see, God often does not make the consequences of sin immediately apparent. He gives fair warning that judgment’s coming, but He usually does not back the caution up with anything demonstrably tangible right at that moment. He allows us, for the time being, to believe Him or not. And there’s the rub, because by not compelling belief in some fashion, by not waving the big stick right in front of us, as it were, He leaves the decision up to us. Until the grace period is over and He no longer does.

It’s true that, for now, He provides us the choice, and the means of our free will to choose. But He’s made it clear that a time of divine reckoning is coming. On the individual level, it’s at death – the separation of the soul from the body. For the world as a whole, it’s the Day of Judgment. So those who see it as an intolerable offense that a Supreme Moral Authority exists, and has the gall to make His behavioral proscriptions known to mankind, will some day, perhaps soon, find themselves in the same position as a kid caught bloody-handed beating that puppy - with no excuse and no defense.

On that day, it won’t be bear and cubs, it will be omnipotent God and depraved, unrepentant sinner, and ain’t no amount of yelling, screaming or blasphemous sign-wielding that will make a bit of difference. God will have His way. The question is will we let Him have it now, while we’re free to choose, or we will wait until the choice is no longer possible and we are held accountable for our deliberate unbelief?